Cosby judge could revisit issue of revealing names of jurors

Bill Cosby exits the Montgomery County Courthouse after a mistrial was declared in Norristown, Pa., Saturday, June 17, 2017. Cosby's trial ended without a verdict after jurors failed to reach a unanimous decision.

NORRISTOWN, Pa. — The names of the jurors who failed to reach a verdict in Bill Cosby's sexual assault trial have not been made public, but the judge in the case could revisit the issue as early as Monday.

The names remain shielded under a protective order that several news outlets have challenged. Judge Steven O'Neill advised jurors when the trial ended on Saturday outside Philadelphia, after a week of testimony and 52 hours of deliberations, that they need not discuss the case, even as the public debates whether age, race, gender or other issues separated them.

“It can never be clearer that if you speak up, you could be chilling the justice system in the future if jurors are needed in this case,” O'Neill told them.

Criminal law professor Jody Armour wonders if the bitter divide over social issues that is evident in American politics was at work in the jury room.

“Social attitudes in general affect what happens in criminal trials, in rape cases. We can now wonder if a lot of those kinds of attitudes were at play in ... Bill Cosby's rape case,” said Armour, who teaches at the University of South California.

Cosby, the actor and comedian known as “America's Dad,” was charged with three felony counts of aggravated indecent assault stemming from Andrea Constand's allegations that he drugged and violated her at his suburban Philadelphia home in 2004. Cosby, 79, said the encounter was consensual.

Two women jurors looked anguished when they announced the final deadlock, wiping away tears. Other jurors were harder to read. It is not yet clear why jurors could not reach a verdict, or how close they came.

“We get 12 people to agree on sex assault cases all the time, but this is not any case. It's an old case, it's a controversial case, it's a case that involves questions of consent,” said professor Laurie Levenson, of Loyola Law School.

Levenson believes the breakdown of the first Cosby jury is important to know, but perhaps not predictive of how the second trial might go.

“Anything can happen because it's a new set of jurors,” Levenson said. “The second time around, are they coming with an agenda? Do they want to save Cosby, or do what the first jury couldn't do, which was convict him?”

In the retrial, District Attorney Kevin Steele could ask the judge to let more of Cosby's 60 accusers testify or disclose to jurors that Constand is gay. That never came up in her seven hours of testimony. The defense had hoped, if it did, to introduce evidence she had previously dated a man.

“The key to retrying a case is to do it differently the second time, because the defense expects you to do it the same way,” said Constand's lawyer, Dolores Troiani.

Constand is on board for the retrial. And Steele on Sunday denied a media report that Cosby had ever been offered a plea deal.

Cosby also is battling sexual battery or defamation cases still pending by 10 women in California and Massachusetts. Several of them attended the criminal trial with their layers. The discovery in those cases is underway, but his deposition testimony will remain on hold until the retrial in the criminal case.

Cosby remains free on $1 million bail over the three felony charges. O'Neill could schedule the retrial within weeks.

The Associated Press does not typically identify people who say they are victims of sexual assault unless they grant permission, which Constand has done.

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our
Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent
via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.